>
><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>><<>
>
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY
>
> http://www.biologicaldiversity.org
10-8-01
#285
><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>><<>
>
>§
FULLY PROTECTED SPECIES REPEAL STOPPED IN CA LEGISLATURE
>
>§ PYGMY
OWL HOLDS ONTO LISTING PROTECTION, LOSES CRITICAL HABITAT
>
>§
PROTEST FILED TO HALT LAND TRANSFER IN MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE FOR
MINE
>
>§ REGULATORS HALT POWER PLANT NEAR ARIZONA'S BIG
SANDY
>__________
__________
__________
>
>FULLY PROTECTED SPECIES REPEAL STOPPED IN CA
LEGISLATURE
>
>The Center for Biological Diversity helped stop three
bills in the
>California legislature this month that attempted to repeal
California's
>Fully Protected Species law, the strongest species
protection law in the
>country. Once designated as such by the California
Legislature, a Fully
>Protected species cannot be killed or harmed under
any circumstances,
>addressing loop-holes in the California and
Federal Endangered Species
>Acts. Fully protected status has been crucial
to the survival and recovery
>of the Southern Sea Otter, California
Condor, Bighorn Sheep, San Francisco
>Garter Snake and dozens of other
species throughout California.
>
>Commercial developers, water
users, and other resource extraction
>industries put three bills before
the legislature, each attempting to
>undue the Fully Protected Species law
in a different way. The Center for
>Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club,
The California Native Plant
>Society, and other groups mounted a
grassroots campaign to oppose these
>bills, and when the legislature ended
this year's session none of the
>bills had passed; in fact, the opposition
was so strong that none of the
>bills came to floor
vote.
>
>While this victory is gratifying, it may also be fleeting.
Developers are
>already encouraging Assemblyman Dean Florez (D), chair of
the Water Parks
>and Wildlife Committee, to reintroduce Fully Protected
Species repeal
>legislation in the next legislative session. The Center
for Biological
>Diversity will be closely monitoring the Legislature to
insure that
>California's species protection laws remain
strong.
>__________
___________
__________
>
>PYGMY OWL HOLDS ONTO LISTING PROTECTION, LOSES
CRITICAL HABITAT
>
>Last month a federal judge removed pygmy owl
critical habitat designation
>of over 730,000 acres in Southern Arizona,
but uphleld its listing as a
>federally endangered species. U.S. District
Court Judge Susan R. Bolton
>ruled that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service failed to adequately study
>possible economic impacts when the
agency designated critical habitat for
>the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl
in 1999.
>
>The ruling stems from a suit filed by the Southern
Arizona Homebuilders
>Association (SAHBA), the National Association of
Homebuilders, and the
>Homebuilders Association of Southern Arizona last
year. The developers
>failed in their effort to get a ruling removing the
cactus ferruginous
>pygmy owl from federal listing as endangered in
Arizona.
>
>The judge ruled that the federal agency could limit owl
population counts
>to those in Arizona. Developers' attorneys argued
unsuccessfully that the
>owl population in northern Mexico also should be
included in counts
>determining whether the pygmy owl is actually an
endangered
species.
>__________
__________
__________
>
>PROTEST FILED TO HALT THE TRANSFER OF LANDS IN MOJAVE
NATIONAL PRESERVE
>FOR MINE
>
>The Western Mining Action
Project, on behalf of the Center for Biological
>Diversity, National Parks
Conservation Association and Citizens For Mojave
>National Park filed a
protest with the Interior Department to halt the
>patenting of 672.5 acres
of mining claims in the Mojave National Preserve.
>If the Interior
Department issues a full patent, the land will leave park
>ownership and
become private lands as provided for under the 1872 Mining
Law.
>
>The claims are associated with the Cima Cinder Mine in the
austere and
>beautiful Cinder Cones area of the Preserve; lands that also
are
>designated critical habitat for the threatened desert
tortoise.
>
>The National Park Service (NPS) regulates all mining in
parks on both
>patented and unpatented claims. But, there is another good
reason for
>limiting the patent for valid claims in the Preserve. The NPS
regulations
>better protect park resources from mining on claims where the
surface
>belongs to the park than on claims that are fully patented.
Miners can
>still mine on claims even if they receive only a limited
patent, as long
>as they meet the standards of the NPS mining rules,
adopted in 1977.
>
>The Mining Law of 1872 is a relic of a bygone
era when America was
>committed to disposing of its common lands. Under
the antiquated statute,
>persons can get full title to the lands in a
mining claim for a mere $2.50
>per acre. Congress clearly did not want
that to happen to park land in the
>Mojave National Preserve. The Center,
Citizens for Mojave and NPCA have
>taken the lead to protect Mojave
National Preserve.
>
>To learn more about the Center's work in the
California deserts
>http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/goldenstate/cdca/index.html
>__________
__________
____________
>
>REGULATORS HALT POWER PLANT NEAR ARIZONA'S BIG
SANDY
>
>By Max Jarman
>The Arizona Republic
>Sept. 14,
2001
>
>Arizona utility regulators blocked a major power plant this
week, the
>first denial among a host of new electricity generators planned
to meet
>future energy needs.
>
>The Line Siting Committee of
the Arizona Corporation Commission voted 8-1
>late Wednesday to deny a
certificate of environmental compatibility for
>the proposed Big Sandy
power plant near Wikieup. It was the first such
>permit denied by the
committee that in recent months has approved 10 others.
>
>The
developers, Big Sandy Caithness LLC, a New York-based energy firm,
may
>appeal to the Arizona Corporation Commission, which has final say in
the
>matter. A Caithness representative could not be reached for comment
about
>what the company plans to do next.
>
>A draft
environmental impact study indicated the 720-megawatt power plant
>would
have harmed the Big Sandy River, one of the state's few
remaining
>riparian areas and home to the endangered Southwestern willow
flycatcher.
>
>While Caithness proposed a mitigation plan to repair
any environmental
>damage caused by the plant, Chairwoman-designee Laurie
Woodall said the
>committee was not convinced that it would be
effective.
>
>"They presented a hydrological study based on a
limited amount of data and
>an incomplete assessment of the impact the
loss of water in the Big Sandy
>would have on endangered species," she
said.
>
>Woodall noted the 11-member committee is bound by Arizona's
Constitution
>to give special consideration to areas that provide habitat
for threatened
>or endangered species.
>
>"It was a judgment
call on whether the mitigation measures really provide
>enough security,
and the balance was tipped to the side of protecting the
>environment,"
she said.
>Jack Ehrhardt, whose Citizens for Future Generations group
opposed the
>plant, said he was elated by the committee's
decision.
>
>The Big Sandy plant is one of more than 20 new merchant
power plants
>proposed for the state. The project drew organized
opposition from
>citizens and environmental
groups.
>__________
__________
__________
>
>Shane Jimerfield
>Center for Biological
Diversity
>Tel: 520.623.5252, ext 302 Fax: 520.623.9797
>PO
Box 710, Tucson AZ 85702-0710
>http://www.biologicaldiversity.org
Kierán
Suckling
ksuckling@biologicaldiversity.org
Executive
Director
520.623.5252 phone
Center for Biological
Diversity 520.623.9797
fax
<www.biologicaldiversity.org>
POB 710, Tucson, AZ
85702-0710
</x-flowed>